[sockaddr]

Sorry but I think you’re requirement that something only be “the art” if any arbitrary person can critique it is off. The frontier labs are working on the state of the art but it’s just art that you aren’t allowed to see. Unfortunately.

[dofm]

It is work using the principles of the art, obviously.

But "state of the art" implies the highest state of general availability, not just in terms of access to some product, but of use of the ideas, concepts, methodologies etc.

Anthropic and OpenAI have "cutting edge" models; the state of the art is behind the cutting edge.

The state of the art is the best open source, open weights model available. More or less by definition.

I am probably tilting at windmills here.

[bnj]

I appreciate this distinction. The are multiple senses of SOTA and one that has been taking on greater mindshare is as a synonym of “the best available”. By rebasing on SOTA as generally available and understood versus cutting edge, which has limited distribution and leads the way, we expand the vocabulary we have available to describe what’s going on. Thanks.

[toss1]

That's an interesting and possibly useful distinction , but it seems unique to you. Spreading it as "We should categorize the AIs this way" would be a good argument.

But the way SOTA is generally understood by other users of the language, it refers to exactly the team, technology, & techniques defining the cutting edge in any field, regardless of the whether the technology & techniques are available outside of that team...

[8note]

the art is the standard engineering practices that go into building the thing

its things you would be trained in as part of a bachelor's degree and some graduate coursework